This surveillance can help in assessments of the prevalence of wild animal-to-human transmission.
We studied the prevalence of influenza A virus in wintering waterfowl from the Central Flyway on the Gulf Coast of Texas. Of 5,363 hunter-harvested migratory and resident waterfowl and wetland-associated game birds sampled during 3 consecutive hunting seasons (September–January 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09), real-time reverse transcription–PCR detected influenza A matrix sequences in 8.5% of samples, H5 in 0.7%, and H7 in 0.6%. Virus isolation yielded 134 influenza A viruses, including N1–N9, H1–H7, H10, and H11 subtypes. Low-pathogenicity H7 subtype was isolated during January, September, and November 2007 and January 2008; low-pathogenicity H5 subtype was isolated during November and December 2007.
Wild waterfowl, primarily species in the orders Charadriiformes and Anseriformes (
In North America, migratory birds use 4 major flyways: Pacific, Central, Mississippi, and Atlantic (
We recently reported AIV prevalence, as determined by real-time reverse transcription–PCR (rRT-PCR) and virus isolation, from a multiyear surveillance project (September 2005–January 2009) of hunter-harvested waterfowl in the Texas mid–Gulf Coast region (
During 2006–09, cloacal swab samples were collected from hunter-harvested waterfowl (
Locations of state wildlife management areas where samples were collected from waterfowl for avian influenza virus surveillance, Texas mid–Gulf Coast, USA, September–January 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09. Inset shows location of Texas (shaded).
All samples were collected, processed, and tested as previously described (
We previously documented that prevalence estimates calculated on virus isolation following a positive AIV-matrix rRT-PCR provided results nearly identical to those obtained by performing both tests in parallel (
Pearson χ2 analyses were used to evaluate differences in AIV-infected proportion by sex (drake vs. hen), age (adult vs. juvenile), species of waterfowl, and hunting season of collection (seasons 1, 2, 3). Fisher exact test was used instead of χ2 when
A multivariate main effects logistic regression model was also constructed to assess differences in AIV detection by using rRT-PCR by age, sex, and bird species. Species were categorized as blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, gadwall, northern shoveler, or other species. We chose the 4 species-specific categories because they represented the largest numbers of tested birds. Sample records with missing rRT-PCR results or age, sex, or species data were removed from this analysis. We analyzed all data using Intercooled Stata version 9 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA).
A total of 5,363 cloacal swab samples were collected from 33 different potential host species, including a variety of waterfowl and other wetland-associated game birds (
| Hunting season | Juvenile waterfowl† | Adult waterfowl† | p value | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. tested | rRT-PCR | VI | No. tested | rRT-PCR | VI | rRT-PCR | VI | |||
| 2006–07 | 518 | 8.30 (5.92–10.68) | 3.28 (1.75–4.82) | 1,081 | 5.46 (4.10–6.81) | 0.74 (0.23–1.25) | 0.029 | <0.001 | ||
| 2007–08 | 763 | 13.80 (11.30–16.20) | 5.50 (3.89–7.12) | 1,189 | 10.51 (8.77–12.20) | 3.28 (2.27–4.29) | 0.030 | 0.022 | ||
| 2008–09 | 222 | 8.56
(4.88–12.24) | 1.80
(0.49–4.55) | 489 | 4.70
(2.82–6.58) | 0.20
(0.01–1.13) | 0.043 | 0.035 | ||
| Total‡ | 1,503 | 11.10 (9.52–12.69) | 4.06 (3.06–5.06) | 2,759 | 1.74 (1.25–2.23) | 1.74 (1.25–2.23) | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
*rRT-PCR, real-time reverse transcription–PCR; VI, virus isolation. †Values for rRT-PCR and VI are apparent prevalence, % (95% confidence interval). ‡Total = the 3 hunting seasons combined (September–January, 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09).
Of 4,119 samples processed for virus isolation, influenza A viruses were isolated from 134. All 9 NA subtypes (N1–9) were isolated, whereas only 9 of the 16 different HA subtypes (H1–7, 10, and 11) were isolated. Thirty-two different HA and NA subtype combinations were identified (
The most frequently identified HA subtypes during season 1 were H3 and H6 (8 [25.0%] and 9 [28.1%], respectively), whereas for season 2, H4 and H10 were predominant (26 [26.8%] and 17 [17.5%], respectively); the H4 subtype (4 [80.0%]) remained predominant in season 3. With respect to NA subtypes, N1 and N8 were most common in season 1 (8 [18.8%] and 10 [31.3%], respectively), whereas N6, N7, and N8 (19 [19.6%]; 16 [16.5%], and 19 [19.6%], respectively) were predominant in season 2, with N6 and N8 (2 [40.0%] each) remaining predominant in season 3. The most frequent HA and NA subtype combinations identified during season 1 were subtype H3N8 (n = 7) and H6N1 (n = 4) viruses, whereas H4N6 (n = 17), H3N8 (n = 9), and H10N7 (n = 9) viruses were the most common subtype combinations identified in season 2, and H4N6 (n = 2) and H4N8 (n = 2) were most common in season 3 (
H7 subtype was identified by rRT-PCR during all 3 hunting seasons (n = 2, 28, and 2, respectively). Additionally, H5 subtype was detected by rRT-PCR for all 3 seasons (n = 14, 21, and 2, respectively). Yet, H5 viruses were isolated only during season 2, whereas H7 viruses were isolated during all 3 hunting seasons (
| Species* | Subtype (no. isolated) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| September† | November | ||||||
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | ||
| Fulvous whistling duck ( | – | – | – | H6N1 | – | – | |
| Mottled duck × mallard ( | – | – | – | – | H6N8 | – | |
| Mottled duck ( | – | – | – | H6N5 | – | – | |
| Northern pintail ( | – | – | – | – | H4N8 | – | |
| Northern shoveler ( | – | – | – | H2N9, H3N8, H4N2, H4N6, H4N8 | H4N2, H5N2, H5N3, H6N2, H10N2, H11N9 (2) | H7N2 | |
| Teal, blue-winged ( | H1N1, H3N6, H3N8 (6) | H1N1 (2), H2N8, H3N4, H3N6, H3N8 (9), H4N1, H4N6 (17), H4N8 (6), H6N1, H7N1, H7N1/4, H7N7 (2), H10N7 (5) | H4N6, H4N8 | H2N9, H4N2 H4N6, H4N8 H6N1 (3), H6N1/4, H6N5, H6N6, H6N8 | H3N6, H5N2 (2), H5N3 (2), H7N4, H7N7 (3), H10N7, H11N9 (3) | H4N8 | |
| Teal, green-winged ( | H6N2 | H10N7 | – | H1N1 | H5N2, H7N1/4, H11N9 | – | |
*Species selected by significance as determined by prevalence, uniqueness to the area, or native, nonmigratory species. †Teal are the only species hunted during September on the Texas mid–Gulf coast.
| Species* | Subtype (no. isolated) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| December | January | ||||||
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | ||
| Northern pintail ( | – | H10N3/7 | H4N6 | – | H10N3 | – | |
| Northern shoveler ( | – | H5N2, H6N2, H10N7 | – | – | – | – | |
| Teal, blue-winged ( | – | – | – | – | H10N3 (3) | – | |
| Teal, green-winged ( | H10N7, H11N3 | – | – | H7N3 | H7N3, H10N3 (2) | – | |
*Species selected by significance as determined by prevalence, uniqueness to the area, or native, nonmigratory species.
Apparent AIV prevalence did not differ significantly between hens and drakes by rRT-PCR or virus isolation during any of the 3 hunting seasons or all seasons combined (
To determine whether a species effect existed for age differences, we assessed apparent AIV prevalence by age for species for which >100 samples from adult birds and >100 samples from juvenile birds were tested (i.e., blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, gadwall, and northern shoveler;
| Variable | Odds ratio (95% CI) | p value |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Drake | 1.0† | |
| Hen | 1.07 (0.859–1.320) | 0.558 |
| Age | ||
| Adult | 1.0 | |
| Juvenile | 1.45 (1.17–1.81) | |
| Species | ||
| Other species | 1.0 | |
| Gadwall | 0.407 (0.120–0.825) | |
| Northern shoveler | 1.51 (0.987–2.320) | 0.057 |
| Blue-winged teal | 2.18 (1.52–3.13) | |
| Green-winged teal | 1.12 (0.742–1.680) | 0.592 |
*Results for a total of 4,187 samples, collected during September–January for each season. RT-PCR, reverse transcription–PCR; CI, confidence interval.
Blue-winged teal and northern shovelers had the greatest diversity in subtypes, followed by green-winged teal (
The Texas Gulf Coast provides winter habitat for ≈2–3 million ducks and
The most commonly identified HA and NA subtype combinations during season 1 were H3N8 and H6N1; during season 2, H3N8 remained, but it was not detected during season 3. During season 2, H4N6 and H10N7, which have been reported on the Gulf Coast (
Outbreaks of H5 AIV have been documented previously in Texas. In 1993, an outbreak of H5N2 occurred in emus, in 2002 H5N3 was detected in chickens, and in 2004 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (H5N2) was reported in a commercial poultry operation (
Our isolation of AIVs from resident (nonmigratory) mottled ducks and mottled duck/mallard hybrids suggests AIV transmission on the wintering ground and is consistent with previous reports (
Before singling out a particular species on which to focus surveillance efforts, one must consider the technique used for subject selection (hunter-harvest vs. live-capture) as well as the area under study (e.g., breeding grounds vs. wintering grounds; fresh water vs. salt water) and which populations are prevalent within the study areas. Mallards have become a primary species of interest not only because of their susceptibility to H5 and H7 subtypes but also because of their abundance and relative ease of capture (
Our study supports the consensus that dabbling ducks are more likely than diving ducks to be positive for AIV; however, as others have documented, not all dabbling ducks are equally likely to be AIV positive (
Although our samples were not collected probabilistically (i.e., the samples reflect hunters’ choices, as well as the relative abundance of each species), use of hunter-harvested waterfowl was convenient for obtaining large number of samples with which to estimate the prevalence of AIV subtypes carried by waterfowl in the Gulf Coast of Texas. In addition, because hunters have been identified as the human population most at risk for exposure to AIV (
AIV surveillance studies over time in the same region are critical, particularly in understudied areas. Although studies in areas of low AIV prevalence are inconvenient because of the large sample sizes required to isolate substantial numbers of AIVs, such surveys are critical to gain more knowledge of the ecology of influenza viruses. Our data contribute temporal information about AIV prevalence and subtype diversity for a historically understudied area of North America, the waterfowl wintering grounds of the Texas Gulf Coast.
We greatly appreciate the cooperation and patience of the waterfowl hunters of the Texas Gulf Coast who graciously allowed us to sample their harvested waterfowl. We thank everyone who assisted in sample collecting over the years. We also appreciate the help of biologists and technicians from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. For assistance with molecular testing, we thank the Animal Health Solutions Group at Ambion, Inc., for subtyping and pathotyping of the influenza isolates and the Avian Section in the Diagnostic Virology Laboratory at the NVSL. The work was completed in the laboratory of B. Lupiani at Texas A&M University.
This research was supported by the National Research Initiative of the US Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service AICAP grant 2005-3560515388 (Z507201), awarded to B.L.
| Species | No. tested | Real-time RT-PCR,†
no. (%) | VI,† no. (%) | Isolate‡ |
| American wigeon ( | 171 | 4 (2.3) | 0 | – |
| Fulvous whistling duck ( | 18 | 2 (11.1) | 1 (5.6) | H6N1 |
| Lesser scaup ( | 60 | 1 (1.7) | 1 (1.7) | H10N7 |
| Mallard ( | 5 | 1 (20.0) | 0 | – |
| Mottled duck ( | 33 | 2 (6.1) | 1 (3.0) | H6N5 |
| Northern pintail ( | 72 | 5 (6.9) | 0 | – |
| Northern shoveler ( | 360 | 23 (6.4) | 5 (1.3) | H2N9, H3N8, H4N2, H4N6, H4N8 |
| Redhead ( | 51 | 2 (3.9) | 0 | – |
| Ring-necked duck ( | 35 | 1 (2.9) | 0 | – |
| Ruddy duck ( | 31 | 2 (6.5) | 0 | – |
| Teal, blue-winged ( | 610 | 65 (10.7) | 19 (3.1) | H1N1, H2N9, H3N6, H3N8 (6), H4N2, H4N6, H4N8, H6N1 (3), H6N1/4, H6N5, H6N6, H6N8 |
| Teal, green-winged ( | 358 | 31 (8.7) | 5 (1.4) | H1N1, H6N2, H7N3, H10N7, H11N3 |
| Snow goose ( | 46 | 2 (4.4) | 0 | – |
| Total§ | 2,171 | 141 (6.5) | 32 (1.5) | – |
*VI, virus isolation; RT-PCR, reverse transcription–PCR.
†Number positive (apparent prevalence). Numbers and apparent prevalences for VI are after RT-PCR result.
‡Isolates typed by the National Veterinary Services Laboratory. Included are VI that were RT-PCR negative on the original sample.
§Other species sampled that were negative for AI by RT-PCR and VI, number sampled: American coot (
| Species | No. tested | Real-time RT-PCR,†
no. (%) | VI,† no. (%) | Isolate‡ |
| American wigeon ( | 51 | 8 (15.7) | 0 | – |
| Fulvous whistling duck ( | 14 | 1 (7.1) | 0 | – |
| Gadwall ( | 160 | 10 (6.3) | 1 (0.6) | H6N1 |
| Mottled duck ( | 26 | 1 (3.9) | 0 | – |
| Mottled duck x Mallard ( | 2 | 1§ | 1§ | H6N8 |
| Northern pintail ( | 62 | 13 (21.0) | 3 (4.8) | H4N8, H10N3, H10N3/7 |
| Northern shoveler ( | 239 | 38 (15.9) | 10 (4.2) | H4N2, H5N2 (2), H5N3, H6N2 (2), H10N2, H10N7, H11N9 (2) |
| Ring-necked duck ( | 17 | 1 (5.9) | 0 | – |
| Ruddy duck ( | 36 | 2 (5.6) | 1 (2.8) | H2N3 |
| Teal, blue-winged ( | 1,213 | 155 (12.8) | 73 (6.0) | H1N1 (2), H2N8, H3N4, H3N6 (2), H3N8 (9), H4N1, H4N6 (17), H4N8 (6), H5N2 (2), H5N3 (2), H6N1, H7N1, H7N1/4, H7N4, H7N7 (5), H10N?, H10N3 (2), H10N3/7, H10N7 (7), H11N9 (3) |
| Teal, cinnamon ( | 2 | 1§ | 1§ | H7N3 |
| Teal, green-winged ( | 464 | 38 (8.2) | 7 (1.5) | H5N2, H7N1/4, H7N3, H10N3, H10N3/7, H10N7, H11N9 |
| Snow goose ( | 43 | 3 (7.0) | 0 | – |
| Total¶ | 2,424 | 272 (11.2) | 97 (4.0) | – |
*VI, virus isolation; RT-PCR, reverse transcription–PCR.
†Number positive (apparent prevalence). Numbers and apparent prevalence for VI are after RT-PCR result.
‡Isolates typed by the National Veterinary Services Laboratory. Seven isolates were confirmed as avian influenza but were unable to be subtyped. Included are virus isolates that were RT-PCR negative on the original sample.
§Apparent prevalence not calculated due to the small sample size.
¶Other species sampled that were negative for AI by RT-PCR and VI, number sampled: American coot (
| Species | No. tested | Real-time RT-PCR,† no. (%) | VI,† no. (%) | Isolate‡ |
| American wigeon ( | 16 | 1 (6.3) | 0 | – |
| Northern pintail ( | 28 | 2 (7.1) | 1 (3.6) | H4N6 |
| Northern shoveler ( | 104 | 5 (4.8) | 1 (1.0) | H7N2 |
| Teal, blue-winged ( | 176 | 21 (11.9) | 3 (1.7) | H4N6, H4N8 (2) |
| Teal, green-winged ( | 314 | 13 (4.1) | 0 | – |
| Total§ | 768 | 42 (5.5) | 5 (0.7) | – |
*VI, virus isolation; RT-PCR, reverse transcription–PCR.
†Number positive (apparent prevalence).
‡Isolates typed by the National Veterinary Services Laboratory.
§Other species sampled that were negative for AI by RT-PCR and VI, number sampled: Common ground dove (
| Neuraminidase | Hunting season | Hemagglutinin* | |||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 10 | 11 | Total | ||
| 1 | 2006–07 | 2 | – | – | – | – | 5 | – | – | – | 7 |
| 2007–08 | 2 | – | – | 1 | – | 2 | 3 | – | – | 8 | |
| 2 | 2006–07 | – | – | – | 2 | – | 1 | – | – | – | 3 |
| 2007–08 | – | – | – | 1 | 5 | 2 | – | 1 | – | 9 | |
| 2008–09 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | |
| 3 | 2006–07 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | 1 | 2 |
| 2007–08 | – | 1 | – | – | 3 | – | 2 | 7 | – | 13 | |
| 4 | 2006–07 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0 |
| 2007–08 | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | 2 | |
| 5 | 2006–07 | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | 2 |
| 2007–08 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | |
| 6 | 2006–07 | – | – | 1 | 2 | – | 1 | – | – | – | 4 |
| 2007–08 | – | – | 2 | 17 | – | – | – | – | – | 19 | |
| 2008–09 | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | |
| 7 | 2006–07 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | 2 |
| 2007–08 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 5 | 9 | – | 14 | |
| 8 | 2006–07 | – | – | 7 | 2 | – | 1 | – | – | – | 10 |
| 2007–08 | – | 1 | 9 | 7 | – | 1 | – | – | – | 18 | |
| 2008–09 | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | |
| 9 | 2006–07 | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 |
| 2007–08 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 6 | 6 | |
| Total | 2006–07 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 0 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 32 |
| 2007–08 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 26 | 8 | 5 | 11 | 17 | 6 | 89† | |
| 2008–09 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | |
| Total | 4 | 4 | 20 | 36 | 8 | 15 | 13 | 19 | 7 | 126 | |
*No H8, H9, or H12–16 were identified in this study. †Eight isolates not recorded because of inability to subtype the hemagglutinin and/or neuraminidase. All isolates included regardless of real-time reverse transcription–PCR result.
| Hunting season | Hen | Drake | p value for
rRT-PCR, VI | |||||
| No. tested | Real-time RT-PCR* | VI† | No. tested | Real-time RT-PCR* | VI | |||
| 2006–07 | 967 | 7.14 (5.51–8.76) | 1.24 (0.54–1.94) | 1,083 | 6.10 (4.67–7.53) | 1.48 (0.76–2.20) | 0.343, 0.645 | |
| 2007–08 | 895 | 13.30 (11.10–15.50) | 4.69 (3.31–6.08) | 1,059 | 10.70 (8.89–12.60) | 3.77 (2.62–4.92) | 0.084, 0.312 | |
| 2008–09 | 400 | 5.00 (2.86–7.14) | 0.25 (0.01–1.38) | 303 | 7.26 (4.34–10.18) | 1.32 (0.36–3.35) | 0.210, 0.171 | |
| Total‡ | 2,262 | 9.20 (8.00–10.39) | 2.39 (1.76–3.02) | 2,445 | 8.26 (7.17–9.35) | 2.41 (1.80–3.02) | 0.255, 0.956 | |
*RT-PCR, reverse transcription–PCR. Apparent prevalence, % (95% confidence interval). †VI, virus isolation. Apparent prevalence, % (95% confidence interval). ‡Total = all 3 seasons combined (September−January 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008−09).
| Age/sex | Hunting season | Total, 2006–09 | ||||||||||||
| 2006–07 | 2007–08 | 2008–09 | ||||||||||||
| No. tested | Real-time RT-PCR* | VI† | No. tested | Real-time RT-PCR* | VI | No. tested | Real-time RT-PCR* | VI | No. tested | Real-time RT-PCR* | VI | |||
| Adult | ||||||||||||||
| Hen | 483 | 34 (7.0) | 5 (1.0) | 468 | 55 (11.8) | 20 (4.3) | 259 | 10 (3.9) | 1 (0.4) | 1,210 | 99 (8.2) | 26 (2.2) | ||
| Drake | 580 | 24 (4.1) | 3 (0.5) | 704 | 69 (9.8) | 19 (2.7) | 221 | 13 (5.9) | 0 | 1,505 | 106 (7.0) | 22 (1.5) | ||
| Total | 1,063 | 58 (5.5) | 8 (0.8) | 1,172 | 124 (10.6) | 39 (3.3) | 480 | 23 (4.8) | 1 (0.2) | 2,715 | 205 (7.6) | 48 (1.8) | ||
| p value | – | 0.33 | – | 0.288 | 0.141 | – | 0.301 | 0.355 | – | 0.264 | 0.177 | |||
| Juvenile | ||||||||||||||
| Hen | 250 | 15 (6.0) | 5 (2.0) | 409 | 60 (14.7) | 20 (4.9) | 136 | 10 (7.4) | 0 | 795 | 85 (10.7) | 25 (3.1) | ||
| Drake | 254 | 27 (10.7) | 12 (4.7) | 344 | 45 (13.1) | 20 (5.8) | 80 | 9 (11.3) | 4 (5.0) | 678 | 81 (12.0) | 36 (5.3) | ||
| Total | 504 | 42 (8.3) | 17 (3.4) | 753 | 105 (13.9) | 40 (5.3) | 216 | 19 (8.8) | 4 (1.9) | 1,473 | 166 (11.3) | 61 (4.1) | ||
| p value | – | 0.060 | 0.090 | – | 0.531 | 0.573 | – | 0.329 | – | 0.448 | ||||
*RT-PCR, reverse transcription–PCR. No. positive (apparent prevalence, %).
†VI, virus isolation. No. positive (apparent prevalence, %).
| Age/sex | Blue-winged teal | Green-winged teal | |||||
| No. tested | Real-time RT-PCR* | VI† | No. tested | Real-time RT-PCR* | VI† | ||
| Adult | 910 | 11.00 (8.97–13.04) | 3.85 (2.60–5.10) | 790 | 6.33 (4.63–8.03) | 0.38 (0.08–1.11) | |
| Juvenile | 620 | 15.48 (12.64–18.33) | 6.94 (4.94–8.94) | 251 | 7.57 (4.30–10.84) | 1.99 (0.26–3.72) | |
| p value | 0.491 | ||||||
| Hen | 772 | 13.73 (11.30–16.16) | 4.40 (2.96–5.85) | 548 | 6.57 (4.50–8.64) | 0.91 (0.12–1.71) | |
| Drake | 894 | 11.30 (9.22–13.37) | 4.92 (3.50–6.34) | 581 | 7.75 (5.57–9.92) | 0.86 (0.11–1.61) | |
| p value | 0.133 | 0.618 | 0.444 | 0.926 | |||
*RT-PCR, reverse transcription–PCR. Apparent prevalence, % (95% confidence interval).
†VI, virus isolation. Apparent prevalence, % (95% confidence interval).
| Age/sex | Gadwall | Northern shoveler | |||||
| No. tested | Real-time RT-PCR* | VI† | No. tested | Real-time RT-PCR* | VI† | ||
| Adult | 233 | 2.15 (0.29–4.01) | 0.43 (0.01–2.37) | 363 | 7.16 (4.51–9.82) | 1.38 (0.18–2.58) | |
| Juvenile | 144 | 3.47 (0.48–6.46) | 0 | 258 | 12.40 (8.38–16.43) | 3.88 (1.52–6.23) | |
| p value | 0.436 | 0.431 | |||||
| Hen | 221 | 1.36 (0.28–3.92) | 0.45 (0.01–2.50) | 373 | 10.99 (7.82–14.17) | 2.68 (1.04–4.32) | |
| Drake | 216 | 3.24 (0.88–5.60) | 0 | 330 | 7.58 (4.72–10.43) | 1.52 (0.20–2.83) | |
*RT-PCR, reverse transcription–PCR. Apparent prevalence, % (95% confidence interval).
†VI, virus isolation. Apparent prevalence, % (95% confidence interval).
Ms Ferro is a PhD candidate in veterinary microbiology in the College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at Texas A&M University. Her primary research interests include wildlife disease ecology, particularly pathogens at the exotic/wild–domestic animal interface, such as avian influenza virus, and diagnostics associated with viruses of veterinary importance.